Newt Gingrich on Abortion

Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House

Opposing contraception isn't extreme; legal infanticide is

Q: Birth control is the latest hot topic. Do you believe in birth control, and if not, why?

GINGRICH: Two quick points. The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion
opposes. That's legitimate. But I just want to point out, not once did in the 2008 campaign did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these
issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.

ROMNEY: In the previous debate, we wondered why in the world did contraception come up? Well, we found out when Barack Obama
continued his attack on religious conscience. I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama

Don't discard excess embryos from in vitro fertilization

Gingrich said that he would create a commission to study the ethics of in vitro fertilization, which has involved the creation of hundreds of thousands of excess embryos stored or discarded by fertility clinics. "I believe life begins at conception, and
the question I raised was what happens to embryos in fertility clinics, and I would favor a commission to look seriously at the ethics of how we manage fertility clinics," Gingrich said at a news conference outside a Baptist church. "If you have in vitro

Source: Karen Tumulty in Washington Post, "Vows Ban"
, Jan 29, 2012

Embryonic stem-cell research desensitizes us to kill babies

Gingrich is drawing an increasingly hard line against the use of embryonic stem-cell research--a position that contrasts with statements that Gingrich himself has made on the subject in the past.

Speaking at a Baptist church, he declared that embryonic
stem-cell research amounts to "the use of science to desensitize society over the killing of babies." And in a news conference, he said he would ban all embryonic stem-cell research, including that done on discarded embryos created by in vitro

Source: Karen Tumulty in Washington Post, "Vows Ban"
, Jan 29, 2012

Stop forcing pro-choice morality on religious organizations

The campaign against public prayer and the display of religious symbols is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider the following examples:

In May 2009, a pro-life nurse at a New York hospital was forced to participate in a late-term abortion, even
though the hospital had agreed in writing to honor her religious convictions.

In Jan. 2010, a Baptist minister was sentenced to thirty days in jail for peacefully protesting outside a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Oakland, California.

In Feb. 2010, five men were threatened with arrest for preaching Christianity on a public sidewalk in Virginia.

The Founders would have regarded such efforts to remove God from public life as a fundamental threat to liberty.
They saw no contradiction between the First Amendment, which was designed to PROTECT religious liberty, and the need for a free people to remember that their liberties come from God.

Immediately cease public funding for abortion providers

Abortion is perhaps the most contentious public issue today, testing the professed American principle that every human life is precious and entitled to constitutional protection. With the advent of increasingly sophisticated ultrasound technology, public
opinion on abortion has shifted, with a majority of Americans now identifying themselves as pro-life. As with any public policy, the more strongly public opinion is swayed in defense of unborn life, the more our laws should and will change as a result.

Impeach judges who donít abide by Constitution as written

There is a sense of defeatism when it comes to the federal courts because the Left-liberal media insist on judicial supremacy and assert that the only way to check and balance the courts is to pass a constitutional amendment. This is of course absurd and
historically wrong. The amendment process was not intended to be the way to check and balance Supreme Court decisions. There are some steps we can take through the legislative and executive branches to reestablish a constitutional balance.

The
American people can insist on electing Senators who promise to confirm judges who enforce the Constitution as written.

The legislative & executive branches can limit jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear certain types of cases where they believe
the federal judiciary is wrong.

Americans can only insist that judges who consistently ignore the Constitution and the legitimate powers of the other two coequal branches of the federal government be considered unfit the serve and be impeached.

Most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion

At a conference in Atlanta in April, 1995, Gingrich was asked about abortion. "I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion." A murmur ran through the mostly conservative audience.
He quieted it by insisting on putting values first in lawmaking and suggesting that alternatives to abortion such as adoption must be promoted and their costs eased. Still, the answer sounded to many like President Clinton's
1992 convention speech at which he said abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Gingrich is opposed to abortion but does not believe the nation is ready to enact a constitutional ban. In the first three months of 1995, while the Contract With
America was being debated, he angered some Republican congressmen by detouring them from anti-abortion amendments to bills and by putting aside their arguments that a welfare reform package might lead to an increase in abortions.

$500 tax credit for adoption

The Family Reinforcement Act establishes a refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 for adoption expenses such as adoption fees, court costs, and attorney fees to make it easier for families to adopt.
The tax credit is phased out for incomes beginning at $60,000.

Source: Contract With America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 81
, Dec 26, 1994

Supports the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge.

Gingrich signed the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge

The Susan B. Anthony List's 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge asks declared presidential candidates to commit to key pro-life goals if elected to the presidency in 2012. While this is by no means a complete list of all pro-life objectives, having a President that actively supports these pro-life aims will keep up the momentum to achieve our ultimate goal of ending abortion in this country. The Pro-life pledge:

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.